On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 02:19, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>> On Saturday 04 Sep 2004 10:16 am, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> Any chance we can get cxotoday to post a followup article about how the
>>> postgresql community contacted the company and helped them fix their
>>> problems?
>>
>> We have reasons to believe that some other publication would be a better
>> choice.
>>
>> I tried contacting PC Quest, India but they have not responded in last three
>> days. I need to follow up bit more.
>
> I believe no other publication could be better since a) no other
> publication would have the same impact as the original one that posted
> the "hit piece" and b) the same audience may not be reached by another
> publication. However, I'm aware of the other possible arguments against
> publishing in cxotoday. Specifically, the original piece came across as
> a hackish attack with little or no research done on the part of the
> author other than to overhear a lunchtime conversation about how
> PostgreSQL just wasn't cutting it somewhere. However, it may be that
> this experience, and the telling of it to said author would be an eye
> opening experience for him (or her, I didn't really check.)
>
> I certainly believe that whoever publishes this story should reference
> the original one, and the incredibly professional way the postgresql
> community has handled it.
Stupid question, but could this backfire on us?
Here is a company in India that complained about the atrocious performance
PostgreSQL was giving them, they complained vocally about it, and "the
community" jumped to the rescue? Are we going to jump the rescue of the
next one too? Are we setting a potentially bad precedent by advertising
that "if you yell loud enough, we'll focus our attentions on you"?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664